BRCA2 mutations should be screened early and routinely as markers of poor prognosis: evidence from 8,988 patients with prostate cancer

Personalized medicine for metastatic prostate cancer: The paradigm of PARP inhibitors

Despite remarkable progress in the last decade, metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) remains incurable. The approval of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) represents a milestone in this field, which definitively enters the era of precision medicine, as mPCa is often enriched for defects of homologous recombination repair genes. PARPis are now used as single agents for patients with metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Moreover, combinations of PARPis plus androgen-receptor targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, and earlier applications of PARPis in the metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa are under evaluation, representing the possible upcoming applications of these agents. Mechanisms of sensitization and resistance have been only partially elucidated. In our review, we summarize the current clinical evidence regarding PARPis in mPCa and the future directions of these targeted agents.

Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations: second interim analysis of the randomized phase III MAGNITUDE trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA alterations have poor outcomes. MAGNITUDE found patients with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRR+), particularly BRCA1/2, benefit from first-line therapy with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP). Here we report longer follow-up from the second prespecified interim analysis (IA2).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with current standard-of-care therapies. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, including BRCA1/2 alterations, can sensitize cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, which may improve outcomes in treatment-naïve mCRPC when combined with androgen receptor signaling inhibition.

METHODS

MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.

RESULTS

Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.

[Media: see text].

The prevalence of gene mutations in homologous recombination repair pathways in Japanese patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in real-world clinical practice: The multi-institutional observational ZENSHIN study

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a genetically heterogeneous disease with a poor prognosis. The prevalence of mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway genes, including BRCA1/2, as well as treatment patterns and clinical outcomes, are not well characterized among Japanese men with mCRPC.

METHODS

This multicenter, noninterventional cohort study enrolled Japanese men with mCRPC from 24 institutions between 2014 and 2018. Mutations in the 15 HRR-related genes were assessed using archival primary or metastatic tumor samples. Patterns of sequential therapies for mCRPC were investigated. Patients were followed up for survival evaluation including prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 143 patients analyzed, HRR-related mutations were detected in 51 patients (35.7%). The most frequently mutated genes were CDK12 (N = 19, 13.3%), followed by BRCA2 (N = 18, 12.6%), ATM (N = 8, 5.6%), and CHEK2 (N = 3, 2.1%). The most common type of first-line therapy for mCRPC was next-generation hormonal agents (NHA, 44.4%), followed by first-generation antiandrogens (FGA, 30.3%), and taxanes (22.5%). Commonly prescribed first-/second-line sequential regimens included FGA/NHA (17.6%), NHA/NHA (15.5%), and NHA/taxanes (14.1%). The median PSA-PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 5.6 and 26.1 months, respectively. Patients carrying BRCA1/2 mutations had numerically shorter PSA-PFS (median 3.3 vs. 5.9 months) and OS (median 20.7 vs. 27.3 months) than those without mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, approximately one-third of Japanese patients with mCRPC carried mutations in HRR-related genes in this study. The real-world outcomes of mCRPC are poor with conventional therapy, warranting an expansion of treatment options based on genetic abnormalities of the disease.

Prognostic Role of DNA Damage Response Genes Mutations and their Association With the Sensitivity of Olaparib in Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade network that aims to maintain genomic integrity in cells. This comprehensive study was performed to determine the link between different DNA damage response gene mutations and prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Papers published up to February 1, 2022 were retrieved. The DDR gene mutations associated with prostate cancer were identified by referring to relevant research and review articles. Data of prostate cancer patients from multiple PCa cohorts were obtained from cBioPortal. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects models (FEMs) and random-effects models (REMs).

Results

Seventy-four studies were included in this research, and the frequency of 13 DDR genes was examined. Through the analysis of 33 articles that focused on the risk estimates of DDR genes between normal people and PCa patients, DDR genes were found to be more common in prostate cancer patients (OR = 3.6293 95% CI [2.4992; 5.2705]). Also, patients in the mutated group had a worse OS and DFS outcome than those in the unmutated group (P < .05). Of the 13 DDR genes, the frequency of 9 DDR genes in prostate cancer was less than 1%, and despite differences in race, BRCA2 was the potential gene with the highest frequency (REM Frequency = .0400, 95% CI .0324 - .0541). The findings suggest that mutations in genes such as ATR, BLM, and MLH1 in PCa patients may increase the sensitivity of Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that mutation in any DDR pathway results in a poor prognosis for PCa patients. Furthermore, mutations in ATR, BLM, and MLH1 or the expression of POLR2L, PMS1, FANCE, and other genes significantly influence Olaparib sensitivity, which may be underlying therapeutic targets in the future.

Should androgen deprivation therapy and other systemic treatments be used in men with prostate cancer and a rising PSA post-local treatments?

Biochemical recurrence is an evolving space in prostate cancer, with increasing multidisciplinary involvement. Androgen deprivation therapy has shown proof of its value in complementing salvage radiotherapy in high-risk biochemical relapsing patients; ongoing trials aim to further refine this treatment combination. As systemic treatments, and notably next-generation androgen receptor targeted agents, have moved towards early hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic stages, the prostate specific antigen (PSA)-relapse disease stage will be undoubtedly challenged by future evidence from such ongoing clinical trials. With the use of modern imaging and newer molecular technologies, including integration of tumoral genomic profiling and liquid biopsies in risk stratification, a path towards a precision oncology-focused approach will become a reality to guide in the future decisions for patients with a diagnosis of biochemical recurrence.

Genomic Testing in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Pragmatic Guide for Clinicians

CONTEXT

Genomic testing is becoming increasingly important in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) and is being incorporated in clinical practice to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current understanding of genomic alterations and the status of genomic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC), and the potential use of genomic tests in clinical practice.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We reviewed recent publications (past 15 yr) from PubMed, proceedings of scientific conferences, and published guidelines. Reports on mCRPC in the following areas were selected: development, testing, and validation of techniques for identifying genomic alterations; molecular characterization; and trials of genetically targeted therapies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

mCRPC tumors harbor molecular alterations that are possible targets for treatment, and a number of therapies are in development to exploit these alterations (eg, PD-1 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Next-generation sequencing of DNA from tumor tissue can identify somatic alterations that would not be identified by germline testing. Work is ongoing to evaluate the use of less invasive somatic testing methods (eg, sequencing of cell-free circulating tumor DNA). Current international guidelines recommend germline and/or somatic testing for men with advanced and/or high-risk PC regardless of family history to identify those with homologous recombination repair gene mutations or mismatch repair defects/microsatellite instability who may be eligible for treatment with a PARP inhibitor or pembrolizumab, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic testing for mCRPC may provide information on prognostic, predictive, and resistance biomarkers. Although the incorporation of testing into clinical practice remains challenging, routine genomic testing of men with advanced PC is recommended to guide management and treatment decisions.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Similar to many cancers, prostate cancer is caused by defects in the cancer's DNA, which are called genetic or genomic defects. New treatments targeting these defects are approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Specific new tests are under development to detect these potentially treatable genetic defects.

New Prognostic Biomarkers in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the most frequent cancers in men and is a common cause of cancer-related death. Despite significant progress in the diagnosis and treatment of this tumor, patients who relapse after radical treatments inevitably develop metastatic disease. Patient stratification is therefore key in this type of cancer, and there is an urgent need for prognostic biomarkers that can define patients' risk of cancer-related death. In the last 10 years, multiple prognostic factors have been identified and studied. Here, we review the literature available and discuss the most common aberrant genomic pathways in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer shown to have a prognostic relevance in this setting.

Construction and Validation of a Protein Prognostic Model for Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSCC), as the major type of lung cancer, has high morbidity and mortality rates. The prognostic markers for LUSCC are much fewer than lung adenocarcinoma. Besides, protein biomarkers have advantages of economy, accuracy and stability. The aim of this study was to construct a protein prognostic model for LUSCC. The protein expression data of LUSCC were downloaded from The Cancer Protein Atlas (TCPA) database. Clinical data of LUSCC patients were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. A total of 237 proteins were identified from 325 cases of LUSCC patients based on the TCPA and TCGA database. According to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, univariate and multivariate Cox analysis, a prognostic prediction model was established which was consisted of 6 proteins (CHK1_pS345, CHK2, IRS1, PAXILLIN, BRCA2 and BRAF_pS445). After calculating the risk values of each patient according to the coefficient of each protein in the risk model, the LUSCC patients were divided into high risk group and low risk group. The survival analysis demonstrated that there was significant difference between these two groups (p= 4.877e-05). The area under the curve (AUC) value of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.699, which suggesting that the prognostic risk model could effectively predict the survival of LUSCC patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis indicated that this prognostic model could be used as independent prognosis factors for LUSCC patients. Proteins co-expression analysis showed that there were 21 proteins co-expressed with the proteins in the risk model. In conclusion, our study constructed a protein prognostic model, which could effectively predict the prognosis of LUSCC patients.

Correlation of BRCA2 gene mutation and prognosis as well as variant genes in invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the correlation of BRCA2 gene mutation and prognosis as well as variant genes in patients with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. It predicted and explored the possible mechanism and clinical value of BRCA2 in the occurrence and development of tumors.

METHODS

Data sets of patients with bladder cancer were collected from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Also the gene expression profile data and clinical information of the BRCA2 mutation group and non-BRCA2 mutation group were downloaded.

RESULTS

The prognosis of the BRCA2 mutation group was better than that of the non-mutant group. Among the down-regulated genes, the following genes showed significant differences between the two groups: CCL22, CYP2B6, CYP2E1, CYP4F2, HTR1E, HTR1F, KLRC1, NAPSA, SELL, SFTPA1, SFTPA2, SFTPB, SFTPC and STRA8, while the following genes among the up-regulated genes showed significant differences between the two groups: ELAVL3, NOTUM, TRH and VIP. Meanwhile, the following gene sets were highly enriched in BRCA2: cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination, oocyte meiosis, ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, base excision repair, progestin mediated oocyte maturation, basal transcription factor, biosynthesis of N polysaccharide, mismatch repair, sliceosome, purine metabolism as well as P53 and neurotrophic factor signaling pathway, etc.CONCLUSION: These findings suggested that the BRCA2 gene mutation is a good prognostic factor and can be used as a gene to predict the prognosis in the bladder cancer patients.

Effect of DNA damage response mutations on prostate cancer prognosis: a systematic review

The prognosis of men with prostate cancer (PC) with mutations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes undergoing different treatments is unclear. This systematic review compared clinical outcomes in PC patients with DDR mutations (DDR⁺) versus no mutations (DDR^-). 14 resources plus gray literature were searched for studies in PC and subgroups (castration-resistant PC, metastatic PC and metastatic castration-resistant PC) by DDR gene (ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C) mutation status. From 11,648 records, 26 studies were included. For mCRPC, six studies reported comparative efficacy for key outcomes. Improvements in several clinical outcomes were observed for DDR⁺ (vs DDR^-) after PARP inhibitor therapy or immunotherapy. DDR⁺ PC patients may have improved outcomes depending on the treatment they undergo.

The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A prior meta-analysis found no association between BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer (PCa). Subsequent BRCA2 mutation studies have shown an association with PCa risk and mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of overall BRCA mutation carriers and in subgroups to (1) estimate PCa risk in BRCA mutation carriers, (2) evaluate the frequency of BRCA mutation carriers in patients with PCa, and (3) compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) among BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR), percentage (%), and hazard ratio (HR) were used to calculate pooled estimates for PCa risk, frequency, and survival, respectively. Subgroup analyses by mutation type ( BRCA1 or BRCA2) were conducted for the three objectives. Further subgroup analyses by study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping), population (Ashkenazi Jewish or general population), and survival outcomes (CSS or OS) were conducted. The associations were evaluated using random-effects models, in two-sided statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 8 cohort, 7 case-control, 4 case-series, 28 frequency, and 11 survival studies were included. Being a BRCA mutation carrier ( BRCA1 and/or BRCA2) was associated with a significant increase in PCa risk (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58-2.29), with BRCA2 mutation being associated with a greater risk of PCa (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.03-3.47) than BRCA1 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03-1.76). The frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers in patients with PCa was 0.9% and 2.2%, respectively. OS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.30) and CSS (HR = 2.63, 95% CI = 2.00-3.45) were significantly worse among BRCA2 carriers compared to noncarriers, whereas OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.11-1.99) and CSS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.38-2.96) were statistically not significant when comparing BRCA1 carriers and noncarriers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a 1.90-fold greater risk of PCa in overall BRCA mutation carriers. This elevated PCa risk is attributable mainly to a 2.64-fold greater risk of PCa in BRCA2 carriers compared to a moderate 1.35-fold greater risk in BRCA1 carriers. The frequency of BRCA2 mutations was higher than BRCA1 mutations among patients with PCa. BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutations were associated with higher PCa mortality. The BRCA mutation may be a clinical factor to stratify high-risk patients and guide clinical strategies for more effective treatments for patients with PCa.

Germline BRCA mutation in male carriers-ripe for precision oncology?

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the known heritable cancers with individual variations attributed to genetic factors. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumour suppressor genes with crucial roles in repairing DNA and thereby maintaining genomic integrity. Germline BRCA mutations predispose to multiple familial tumour types including PC.

METHODS

We performed a Pubmed database search along with review of reference lists from prominent articles to capture papers exploring the association between BRCA mtuations and prostate cancer risk and prognosis. Articles were retrieved until May 2017 and filtered for relevance, and publication type.

RESULTS

We explored familial PC genetics; discussed the discovery and magnitude of the association between BRCA mutations and PC risk and outcome; examined implications of factoring BRCA mutations into PC screening; and discussed the rationale for chemoprevention in this high-risk population. We confirmed that BRCA1/2 mutations confer an up to 4.5-fold and 8.3-fold increased risk of PC, respectively. BRCA2 mutations are associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease, progression to metastatic castration-resistant disease, and 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of 50 to 60%.

CONCLUSION

Despite the growing body of research on DNA repair genes, deeper analysis is needed to understand the aetiological role of germline BRCA mutations in the natural history of PC. There is a need for awareness to screen for this marker of PC risk. There is similarly an opportunity for structured PC screening programs for BRCA mutation carriers. Finally, further research is required to identify potential chemopreventive strategies for this high-risk subgroup.